Theresa May’s Nasty Britain

LONDON – British Prime Minister Theresa May once warned her fellow Conservatives of the perils of being known as the “nasty party.” But after 100 days in office, she is in danger of going further, turning the United Kingdom into the nasty country.

In just a few months, May has launched attacks on “international elites” and decided to prioritize immigration controls over single-market access in negotiating the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. At one point recently, companies faced the threat of being compelled to furnish a list of their foreign workers. And the 3.5 million European citizens who are settled in the UK were left to worry about whether May’s government would guarantee their residence rights.

It did not take long for the normalization of nationalist rhetoric to affect the daily lives of Britain’s immigrant population. Indeed, hate crimes began to proliferate almost immediately after June’s Brexit referendum – even before May took power. Her government’s attitude seems to be a symptom, rather than a cause, of a broader nativist revival in Britain.

This revival has come on fairly quickly. As recently as the 2012 Olympic Games in London, the UK was showing a very different face to the world: welcoming, connected, and self-confident in its diversity. The current surge in identity politics seems to reflect a backlash against all that openness. In fact, Britain seems to be oscillating between inclusion and exclusion – and has been for four decades.

When Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister in the 1980s, she promoted exclusion, defining British identity with reference to its enemies – and not just external foes, like the Soviet Union or the European Commission. There was no shortage of domestic villains: trade unions, miners, teachers, doctors, the BBC, ethnic minorities, the Scots, the Welsh, and Irish Catholics.

By the time John Major took over the premiership in 1990, there was a sense of national malaise, fueled by anguish about Europe and frustration with the declining prestige of British institutions. In 1995, opinion polls showed that only a minority of the country felt “British,” while many groups – namely young people, ethnic minorities, Londoners, Scots, and Welsh – felt poorly represented.

It was around that time that I, a precocious 23-year-old, became embroiled in the debate about national identity. In 1997, a few months after the election of Tony Blair and a few days after the death of Princess Diana, I wrote a report arguing that, instead of mourning the death of the old narratives, we should celebrate the birth of new ones, reflecting pride in our past successes, while touting our creativity, diversity, and openness to business.

The point of my report, which was credited with spawning the political and media effort to rebrand the UK known as Cool Britannia, was to recognize Britain as a “silent revolutionary” that constantly renews itself, rather than basking in tradition. I was advocating a kind of progressive patriotism – one that was soon embraced by Britain’s political class, beginning with Blair himself.

To my surprise, when the Conservative Party started to renew itself under May’s predecessor, David Cameron, it focused on celebrating an inclusive national identity. Cameron and former London Mayor Boris Johnson, who now serves as foreign secretary, represented the modern, outward-looking, multiracial, multi-ethnic Britain that was broadcast to the world in the electrifying Olympic opening ceremony in 2012.

To be sure, within a couple of years, Cameron was calling for the Brexit referendum in a bid for votes, and Johnson was stepping up as a leader of the “Leave” campaign. Nonetheless, they did not unravel the progress of the previous years.

A major opinion poll recently showed that almost a third of England’s people feel “very positive towards our multicultural society,” up from 24% in 2011. Meanwhile, the proportion of Britons who are most strongly hostile to immigration and a multicultural society has declined, from 13% to 8%. As The Economist’s Jeremy Cliffe argued in a 2015 paper, factors like rising racial diversity, a more educated citizenry, urbanization, and increased variety in family structure seems to be giving rise to “an emerging cosmopolitan majority” in the UK.

As with any major social shift, diversity has its detractors. White, English, working-class men over the age of 55 feel particularly excluded from the progressive version of patriotism, and fear becoming a minority in their “own” country. (According to data cited by Cliffe, the majority of the UK’s population will be non-white by 2070.) So they are revolting against cosmopolitanism – and May is playing to the crowd.

Some fear that this is the new normal. When May’s government first threatened to force companies to list foreign workers, I was dining with tech entrepreneurs from other EU countries who are settled in the UK. They joked darkly about being forced to wear blue stars on their clothes, speculating that the 1990s could one day be seen as an Anglo-Saxon version of Germany’s ill-fated Weimar period. That may be a stretch, but concerns that May’s decision to vacate the political center could represent a long-term reversal of Britain’s political moderation are very real.

Fortunately, however, the long-term trend seems to be toward inclusion, even if the UK takes a couple of steps backward today. Even May herself, in her recent attack on cosmopolitanism, inadvertently celebrated Britain for precisely the achievements that its cosmopolitanism has enabled, from its outsize share of Nobel Prizes to the City of London’s financial clout.

Nonetheless, as the Brexit vote highlighted, Britain’s success is fragile. And the surge in hate crimes shows that the emerging cosmopolitan majority cannot simply sit back and wait for history to do its work. It must offer a new kind of politics that places a wedge between genuine fears and isolationism. It must show how Britain can reinvent its economy and state to deliver equitable growth, thereby regaining its agency in the world. And it must offer new ways to build solidarity and advance inclusion. Britain must not be allowed to become the nasty country.

Incorrect please try again

Enter the numbers/words aboveEnter the numbers you hearCaptcha is invalid, generate another one and use it

Comments

The author speaks from a biased political point of view, which has so many untruths and inconsistencies that a counter narrative absolutely has to be given.

The social experiment of the EU whereby drafting in large numbers of migrants from across the EU to "re-colonise" previously largely homogeneous societies is seen as a "badge of honour" by those intent on destroying national identities and cultures. Clearly all those now subjected to this authoritarian enforced social change can see only too well where this is all heading and people like Mark, see it as his life's work to "create" new futures for nations and societies whether or not they want a new future. To some his new future is the destruction of perfectly harmonious societies; neighbourhoods, values and histories in favour of a "fabricated" new reality where, like the Chinese Revolution, all previous history and national memory (according to the EU and people like Mark) was wrong and has to be "re-programmed" to achieve the "new future" created by Mark and people like him. The arrogance and impertinence of the author is breathtaking! The EU tries to imagine all those in Europe share the same values and beliefs and because of that we are one common European family. The truth is the opposite is true. We barely share the same languages; have very different histories and national memories, we are very different economically and can barely agree on many things as the snail's pace of international trade agreements attests. National interest far from becoming a thing of the past is writ large in Germany's economic strategy in creating the Euro, in France's strategy in monopolising the benefits of the CAP and in country's like Poland exporting their people in large numbers to cover the fact their economic failure is not exposed to the wider world.

The multicultural experiment Mark alludes to and the one enforced on the British people has been a success if wage depression; worker exploitation; overcrowding; social breakdown and family violence were the markers by which success is to be measured. Poles are now the biggest ethnic minority represented in the UK prison system. This is "progress" indeed. It is utter and complete rubbish for Mark to suggest that under Labour multi-culturalism in Britain and any report he is "credited with" shaped the UK in any meaningful way, rather nationalism took off at speed under Labour with the creation of the Welsh and Scottish Assemblies and the use of public money to re-invigorate the Welsh and Scottish national identity and Gaelic language channels funded by the tax payer, all that seemed to do was create massive cultural/historical and societal splits the like of which we are still dealing with and yes thanks to Labour and people like Mark we now have a Scottish question to add to the Irish question!

The English actually when asked see themselves as English first and British second, and why shouldn't they as it appears to be great to be Welsh; Scottish; Polish; Italian; French; African; etc in the UK but call yourself ENGLISH and you are persona non grata - this is the perverse nature of Mark's cosmoplitan tolerance - all ethnic labels are welcome except if you are English! Far from people feeling more European, the truth is simply not out therer for the British, push as he might the British dDO NOT feel European read the facts Mark! With 64% saying they do not see themselves as European http://whatukthinks.org/eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Analysis-paper-2-Do-we-feel-European.pdf

Mark clearly sees himself as part of that unrepresentative cosmopolitan interest group that is so totally out of touch with the average man in the street he is unable to understand the 17 1/2 million people who voted to leave the EU.

Let me help him understand what is going on. As a former consultant to government, in the management of change, a first and fundamental premise in organising any significant change; social; technical etc., is to obtain through discussion and consent those who are to be subjected to the change to have a role in what the change is, why it is needed and how it will change people's lives. Politicians of all hues have singularly failed to observe this cardinal rule, failing to consult results in rejection and the EU have this on a massive scale. For decades now the lack of satisfaction with politicians has been so huge (across Europe) , that most politicians were going to have to accept voter decline was the "new normal" because people were so lethargic and fed up with the current crop of career politicians, who had no life experiences, hadn't really ever held done a proper job yet presumed to "write papers" and lecture the rest of us on how we needed to change our lives to fit in with the Euro view of the world, one happy clappy meltng pot - which even a blind man can see simply isn't nor will happen any time soon.

The assertion that Europe "shares" the same values; beliefs and objectives is manifestly untrue, and the UK is by no means the only country concerned about mass migration, loss of national identity, loss of civil cohesion, and worried about exploitation. To suggest Theresa May is heading up "Nasty Britain" is an impertinent slander. Perhaps Mark you should look at the facts rather than peddle lies and falsehoods which you know to be untrue let's look at some of the facts:

OECD confirms Britain is only second to the USA for attracting migrants - this would not be the case if people did not feel welcome and the UK is far ahead of many European countries http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2778589/Britain-is-second-most-popular-destination-for-migrants-OECD-says.html In fact the patience of the Dutch is so tried that Holland is now seen as one of the most unfriendly places in Europe !http://www.dutchdailynews.com/unfriendly-country-expats/

The very regrettable death of a Polish immigrant in in Billericay is as nothing when compared to the murders and attacks on migrants recorded by German/French/and Italian press.http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-11/german-biker-gangs-hooligans-attack-foreigners-migrant-manhuntshttps://calaismigrantsolidarity.wordpress.com/deaths-at-the-calais-border/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/2990663/Italian-mafia-shoot-out-kills-seven.html

Mark, you need balance. The "tolerance" of British people has been tested to breaking point, with four million inward migrants coming to our shores in the last ten years, and with 300,000 net inward migrants every year. The UK problem is over crowding, not a problem in other parts of the EU. Certainly the migrant welcome in the UK is head and shoulders above that in other parts of Europe, you only have to sample the attitudes of Eastern EU members to migrants, with their walls and firm "NO" to migration, to know for certain the UK is one of the most if not THE most tolerant and welcoming place in Europe, and to suggest Theresa May is now creating a Nasty Britain is so far from the truth as to be slanderous and ridiculous in its hyperbole.

Even the most tolerant country has its limits, Holland is a perfect case in point. Welfare abuse; housing shortages; over use of health system, traffic chaos and the general breakdown of social infrastructure caused by over crowding is the prime cause of the UK's tension with immigration, especially when this "immigration" is used by people like Mark to taunt the residents and electors of the UK with their "grand plan" to wreck their communities, create instability and push millions of incomers who don't speak English into areas which don't have the infrastructure to cope, let alone without the residents consent or involvement.

The smug self satisfied people who identify with Mark, have no idea what terrible damage they have done to communities and rather than create community cohesion, they have created many fractured communities who are isolated, in some areas unwanted and drifting in a large number of parallel communities divided by race; religion; cultural and language differences.

This great human experiment has been a social disaster, played out in a more deadly way in places like France and Germany, with smaller but just as dangerous breakouts all over Europe.

Mark and his "cosmopolitan" elites found out the hard way that their view was actually a minority view when Brexit came to pass, cities are not rural communities and social networks cannot be dismantled to make way for Mark's "new normal" which is largely unwanted and unworkable without the consent, involvement and buy in by the wider community - there is no buy in, and attempts to force change on people who don't want to change (because they are hacked off with being bullied to change) this has simply created bad blood, resentment and a backlash of significant and potentially explosive proportions, characterised by the term "populism" as if the push back against mass immigration and the enforced change of culture and identities is a right wing rejection of "progressive" human development. It isn't, it is a most basic human reaction to having your home and social space invaded by unsustainable numbers of foreign incomers who disrespect your country, your values, your public welfare systems, you way of life and language and wish to recast it in their own image, which is a fractured and alienated society lacking cohesion and common purpose.

Until our hospitality was so mercilessly abused, the British had one of the best reputations for migrant hospitality. Why did so many people suffer in the wind and rain at Calais preferring to go to the UK rather staying in France if the welcome in France was so much better?

Cameron tried and failed to argue for "time out" so we could sort the mess out, the EU rejected that so we move forward into a bigger and existential mess of the EU's making. Read more

I find this a rather patronising attack on a peoples justifiable and democratic decision to decide their own fate; accusations of hate crimes are a little overstated.The last 30 years of neo liberalism have shown that there is little of value to be had from this ideology except crisis after crisis and the author would appear to belong to this patronising group that have systematically lied to society about their ambitions and their methods.I would agree that UK politicians are largely to blame & Brussels has dug its own grave but do not attempt to paint a false picture of Englush society, which has deteriorated hugely under politicians like Blair.Trevor Philips confirmed these most basic of errors on his C4 documentary.Your problem is precisely that you do not embrace everyone, only those that favour your dogma .

Or alternatively a country of 60 million cannot take 10 million extra, without democratic consent - e.g. because housing and services are not limitless. By example youngsters cannot leave home because they cannot afford, to then cannot start families, and have their lives wrecked. There is no need to sneer at the victims with bigoted anti Anglo racist Stereotyping - a significant area of hate "crime" in Europe now. Read more

Ecologically a defined territory (bioregion) has a limited capacity for human development. Obviously as more and more people occupy a defined territory then green infrastructure must be replaced with grey infrastructure. This exerts an increased demand for basic need imports from either other regions or other countries. Therefore whilst one defined territory is turning grey, another must turn green to compensate in order to provide for food, wood, textiles.

Consequently a balance must be struck and incorporated into this balance is both rights and responsibilities. For example, as Britain increases its population though immigration and its green infrastructure decreases, Lithuania has seen a loss of 375,000 people http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/24/anti-emigration-party-storms-to-victory-in-lithuania/?utm_source=BrexitCentral+Mailing+List&utm_campaign=c40f7b6056-Mailchimp+bulletin&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_23a30e67d9-c40f7b6056-111776 which is going to cause hardship for future generations in the form of brain drain.

This highlights that freedom of movement carries with it rights and responsibilities which requires policy coordination between different countries. The question that arises, who effects this policy coordination if not the individuals who exercise their right to freedom of movement.

This points to an international order that is seemlessly organised and integrated, not one that is chaotically determined by markets and self-interest.

As such, in order to enable freedom of movement on a global scale, resource flows must be managed in order to meet transnational demand. This implies a form of global socialism or a form of global mutualism as opposed to global capitalism.

In conclusion, freedom of movement requires a systemic transformation on a global scale in order that the responsibility of fulfilling the basic needs of all that choose to move can be coordinated as policy between different countries.

This may or may not result in highly populated regions of the world deviod of green infrastructure but it most certainly will result in a global system in which labour and economic activity must be managed.

Thus freedom to move will result in less freedoms economically since basic needs policy coordination will need to be determined more technocratically as opposed to via free markets. Otherwise scarce resources through market manipulations could make high density populated areas prone to conflict and crisis. And who will get the blame, migrants!

So as a global governance system we need a democratic form of technocracy whereby through feed back mechanisms (referendums, elections etc), we can choose what type of goods and services we want. Read more

Diversity. Just another way to say divide and conquer. A diverse population is a divided population, constantly fighting over the scraps, and is far too distracted to see the bigger picture. Which, in the end, will be one world government. Whether we like it or not. Read more

So is the logical conclusion that eventually there will be no borders to trade or movement or capital anywhere in the world? Do we want a homogeneous world? One culture? One government....with the possibility of one almighty bad decision.....

I say no. Variety is the spice of life. Let's celebrate our differences and keep our borders. Read more

Mark Leonard recalls what Theresa May said in 2002 about the Tory Party: "You know what some people call us: the nasty party." But he says she is "in danger of.....turning the United Kingdom into the nasty country." The author highlights how his country has changed in the last four years, and reminds us of its "very different face to the world: welcoming, connected, and self-confident in its diversity," when it - as host of the 2012 Olympics - basked in a golden afterglow of glory. President of the International Olympic Committee, Jacques Rogge, who closed the 30th Olympic games, said: "We will never forget the smiles, the kindness and the support of the wonderful volunteers, the much-needed heroes of these Games....Your enthusiastic cheers energised its competitors and brought a festive spirit to every Olympic venue." The year 2012 also marked the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II - a multinational celebration throughout the year to commemorate the 60th anniversary of her accession to the throne.Today the identity crisis and surge in hate crimes do "reflect a backlash against all that openness." Since the June Brexit vote, and May took office, she has attacked the “international elites” and put a higher priority on "immigration controls" than access to Europe's single-market. Possible plans that would require companies to publicly list their foreign workers were criticised for being anti-foreign and protectionist. Some 3.5 million European citizens "who are settled in the UK were left to worry about whether May’s government would guarantee their residence rights."The author says, the current "government’s attitude seems to be a symptom, rather than a cause, of a broader nativist revival in Britain," and that it "seems to be oscillating between inclusion and exclusion - and has been for four decades," since Britain joined the EEC in 1973. In the 1980s Margaret Thatcher "promoted exclusion, defining British identity with reference to its enemies" both at home and abroad. John Major succeeded her in 1990, and "there was a sense of national malaise, fueled by anguish about Europe and frustration with the declining prestige of British institutions. In 1995, polls showed that only a minority of the country felt 'British'.”In 1997 the author, who called himself "a precocious 23-year-old, became embroiled in the debate about national identity." He said, "instead of mourning the death of the old narratives, we should celebrate the birth of new ones, reflecting pride in our past successes, while touting our creativity, diversity, and openness to business." He aimed to "rebrand the UK known as Cool Britannia," and advocate "a kind of progressive patriotism – one that was soon embraced by Britain’s political class, beginning with Blair himself."To his dismay, this "inclusive national identity" began to wear thin since the debate on Britain's EU membership was launched, following David Cameron's call for the referendum. Boris Johnson was a disappointment when he later became a prominent Brexiteer. While he was mayor of London, he embodied a "modern, outward-looking, multiracial, multi-ethnic Britain that was broadcast to the world in the electrifying Olympic opening ceremony in 2012". Now Theresa May is "playing to the crowd" of "white, English, working-class men over the age of 55 /who/ feel particularly excluded from the progressive version of patriotism, and fear becoming a minority in their “own” country." They are anti-establishment and revolte "against cosmopolitanism" and globalisation. The author is still optimistic that the "long-term trend seems to be toward inclusion, even if the UK takes a couple of steps backward today." Hence it is important not to let Britain to "become the nasty country," but an inclusive Britain for everybody. To start with it is important for Brexiteers and Bremainers to reach out to each other. The latter have to convince their disaffected diehard opponents that success is not sour grapes.﻿ Read more

Has anyone ever questioned why the Brits love "Football" whilst the Americans like "American Football". The former type of football, no one catches the ball and everyone keeps on kicking it (so effectively no one owns it). In the latter (US) case, everyone fights to catch the ball just to throw it away. So draw your own conclusions. Read more

This is what happens when you do politics through systematically lying to the public. You end up hoisted on your own propaganda. British problems have nothing to do with the EU. They are consequences of sovereign choices by the UK elites to allow de-industrialization in favor of financial markets. Germany, in the same EU, made different choices and kept more of their industries. So, when nothing improves with Brexit, and in fact things get worse, mildly so or strongly so, this remains to be seen, what next?

A similar process has been taking place in the US, and it has just produced a spectacular implosion of one half of the US political system.

Perhaps the so called Anglo-Saxon world is destined to go off the cliff together? from empire to the dumpster, in a strange sort of poetic justice? Read more

Well that is a convenient if incorrect narrative. Germany was more than happy to allow the UK to fulfil the Military role for Europe, allowing the UK to spend to protect other NATO members whilst Germany failed to do anything significant to support the cost of that. It created the Euro to enable it to gain financial advantage for its exports, hiding the expensive Deutch Mark in the failing Euro. I see no evidence of Germany stepping up to the plate like Britain has on Foreign Aid or trade liberalisation even within Europe. As nationalistic as ever, Germany does what it does for very selfish nationalistic ends, that is probably why this article is so irritating. Sure the Germans are very welcoming of migrants..... For Germany it is all one way, yes you may laugh at how "clever" Germany has been in making hay while Britain subsidises what Germany should be doing, and the cosy tet a tet with France, but the British have a bigger game to play and actually bearing in mind the low exports to Europe we can play a worldwide game and free ourselves from the cloying self satisfied insular (and failing) Europe that is fast diminishing as a percentage of world trade. (As evidenced by the IMF) Read more

The argument can't help but be disjoint because it is basically a thinly disguised rant. The whole thing spins around the idea of "nasty" vs "cosmopolitan", never quite admitting that nasty is defined as not sufficiently subservient to Eurocrats and cosmopolitan is defined as dedicated to your own elite tribe and not caring a bit about your less well off neighbors. Let me simplify the situation for you: you feel confused that the country that was so cosmopolitan in 2012 could be so nasty now, but that is because you do not understand what cosmopolitan means. What made them cosmopolitan in 2012 was openess to the world, not subservience to Brussels. That openness to the world is still there, the subservience to Brussels is not, and if you cannot fathom that difference that is not Britain's issue. In fact Brussles is not open to the world, as can be seen in the Canada free trade issue. Read more

Identity is the core human psychological imperative. We form our identities in the developmental context of our separation from our mothers (as independent beings and as males or females). This process triggers tremendous anxieties, especially to the degree experience unbalanced or abusive parenting. Those most adversely impacted by the separation/individuation struggle form extremely defensive identities and project their own worst personailty traits onto others who are different. This applies equally well to so-called "natives" and immigrants, who can be equally "nasty" to one another. Read more

MONTREALS-ON-THE-MEDITERRANEANMark - Brexit is Brexit.Great Britain, Greece and Germany - destined for The Purgatory.That leaves ClubMed - the Latin Majority.Why can't ClubMed become a magnet like The Anglosphere - Economic Epicentre, that attracts Migration for Growth.Instead of endless migration to The Anglosphere, why can't ClubMed become like The Anglosphere.It has all the technological capabilities - and the need to build ClubMed Like a Magnet for Migration has never been greater.Yet, the Economic architecture needed always missing - so ClubMed becomes an endless supplier of migrants.Instead, after 500 years of Migration to The Anglosphere - it is time for ClubMed to become The Migration Magnet.Your articles repeatedly demand corrections to those in The Purgatory.Without addressing the need for corrections @ ClubMed - doesn't democracy demand it ?Montreals-on-the-Mediterranean sounds like a great possibility.And Latin can at last become the official language of Europe.Let Brexit be Brexit - democracy demanded it. Read more

@ JBSAnd I enjoy your brilliant comments always.Constructive positive steps forward, harnessing the technological advances within EU and an answer to Migration needs across ClubMed.There will be no shortages of funds - Oil is still a highly liquid asset.France can provide the natural leadership that ClubMed needs.RegardsJS Read more

There is so much opportunity there! The present missed opportunity between the EU and the North African nations (the ones that actually have a marine border) is staggering.

No speed is fast enough to get a free trade agreement between the EU and the North African nations, and later, include them into a Schengen II agreement.

And as we have seen, even when the EU moves at it's fastest possible pace, it takes years for any substantive agreement to occur. Note the present EU/CETA agreement and many others.

"CETA is Canada's biggest bilateral initiative since NAFTA. It was hatched as a result of a joint study "Assessing the Costs and Benefits of a Closer EU-Canada Economic Partnership", which was released in October 2008." -- Wikipedia

And it probably looks like it is going to die before it ever gets passed in the EU. Eight years later.

Anyway, someone at the EU has got to grab hold of this and get it done this century (only 84 years left in the 21st century, so they better get cracking) or, even better, the EU should just hand it to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, and French President Francis Hollande -- who, working together could probably get it done in 2 years -- with plenty of time off for the regular national holidays, etc.

PS On Air: The Super Germ Threat

NOV 2, 2016

In the latest edition of PS On
Air
, Jim O’Neill discusses how to beat antimicrobial resistance, which
threatens millions of lives, with Gavekal Dragonomics’ Anatole Kaletsky
and Leonardo Maisano of
Il Sole 24 Ore.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Sign up to receive newsletters about what's being discussed on Project Syndicate.

EmailReceive our Sunday newsletterA weekly collection of our most discussed columnsReceive our PS On Point newsletterStay informed of the world's leading opinions on global issues

Why not register an account with us, too? You'll be able to follow individual authors (to receive notifications whenever they publish new articles) and subscribe to more specific, topic-based newsletters.

Project Syndicate provides readers with original, engaging, and thought-provoking commentaries by global leaders and thinkers. By offering incisive perspectives from those who are shaping the world’s economics, politics, science, and culture, Project Syndicate has created an unrivaled global venue for informed public debate.